Liberal leadership candidates for a second night in a row spent the majority of the evening discussing the “predatory threat” President Donald Trump poses to Canadians.
Mark Carney, Chrystia Freeland, Karina Gould and Frank Baylis took to the debate stage Tuesday night, on the heels of Monday night’s French-language debate.
Each of the candidates insisted they were best-suited to lead the nation in a tariff war against Trump. Baylis said Trump is “a bully” and he can “predict what bullies will do.”
“This is not a negotiation. This is a shakedown,” said Baylis, claiming Trump’s observations about Canada's weak border security is a “red herring.”
The first 45 minutes of the debate were solely focused on the US president. Freeland doubled down on her remarks from Monday night, where she claimed Trump is Canada’s “biggest threat since the Second World War.
“We can’t change Trump. But we can outwit him,” said Freeland.
Freeland went somewhere nowhere one else did during either debate — threatening nuclear warfare.
“Rather than guaranteeing the rules-based world order, the US is turning predator,” said Freeland.
“Canada needs to work closely with our democratic allies … specifically Denmark, which is also being threatened, and our European NATO allies, and I would be sure that France and Britain were there to possess nuclear weapons.”
“I would be working urgently with those partners to build a closer security relationship that guarantees our security in a time When the United States can be a threat. I would also reach out to our Asian democratic partners, Japan, South Korea, Australia," continued Freeland.
“We need to be ready for a world where the US is not the leader of the free world anymore. Canada can be and must be a leader in building this new order.”
“We need to start thinking about the next generation of warfare.”
“We need to recognize President Trump has said dozens of times he wants us to be the 51st state.”
“It's time for us to step up at home to urgently reach out to [our allies] and build a new world order.”
Carney and Freeland then debated what that “new world order” would look like.
Carney and Gould both pointed to Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre. Carney said Poilievre is “the worst person to stand up to Trump” because “he worships him” and “uses his language.”
Gould chimed in that Poilievre “would rather imitate [Trump] than stand up for Canada.”
While the candidates continued in the same lockstep approach as the night before, with more agreement amongst themselves than actual debate, there were a handful of key distinctions that stood out.
Freeland said she “will not flinch” when dealing with Trump. She also said she’d work with other nations that “face the same challenge” like Mexico, Panama, Denmark and the EU and would call a summit to deal with the US.
Freeland, Gould and Carney said they would retaliate with dollar-for-dollar tariffs on the US. Carney said Canada needs to build allies, and Trump looks to “dominate the northern hemisphere.”
Baylis said he would fly to Mexico to meet with the president to team up against Trump and “call his bluff.”
Gould and Freeland promised to reach the 2% NATO target on defence spending by 2027, Carney said he would by 2030. Gould also slammed Trump’s axing of USAID and insisted on continuing the billions in foreign spending through Canada's counterpart agency, Global Affairs Canada.
“The world needs Canada and Canada will be there for the world,” said Gould, warning of “intense cyber espionage” in the new world order.
At one point during the debate, Carney mentioned foreign interference in what seemed like a genuine moment of meaningful acknowledgment. But all he said was the Poilievre should have obtained security clearance to read the NSICOP report. He did not address the concrete instances documented by CSIS of Chinese Communist Party interference in Canadian elections.
In terms of Canadian issues, candidates universally discussed implementing AI across sectors, specifically healthcare, and simultaneously promising tax cuts while adding more social programs and “investing” in businesses.
Each candidate also promised to make the housing market accessible for young Canadians to buy their first home.
On carbon tax, Baylis, Freeland and Carney said they would repeal the consumer carbon tax but would find other ways to “make polluters pay.” Gould said she would keep it in place because she refused to leave a burning planet to her kids.
Carney said he wants to build homes and infrastructure, chiefly clean energy, but also “intelligence infrastructure.” He and Freeland both pledged to introduce a middle-class tax cut and make greater competition in the industries of groceries, broadband and transportation.
He repeatedly called for a singular Canadian economy rather than the 13 different ones representing the provinces and territories.
Freeland promised to cut interprovincial trade barriers and “invest in Canadian jobs and Canadian companies.” She also promised to offer fully subsidized trade school.
Baylis said he has big plans for economic prosperity, including bringing “fiscal discipline to Ottawa and stop running deficits.” Different from Freeland and Carney, he said he would not cut GST on new homes, but would instead invest in modernizing healthcare.
Notably, Baylis took an almost DOGE (US Department of Government Efficiency) approach when it comes to the CRA. “Revenue Canada is the biggest pain point for both individuals and businesses trying to pay their taxes,” he said.
“This is ridiculous. This is such a waste of time, and that’s the time that directly impacts Canadians. So I'm going to fix that.”
Gould wants universal basic income and to expand daycare to after-school care.
The issue of pipelines arose again, though during Tuesday’s French-language debate, candidates spoke more at length on the issue.
Baylis said he would build two pipelines from Alberta while also investing in nuclear energy. Carney said he would discuss “building pipelines” among other kinds of energy with first ministers, while also focusing on carbon capture and storage.
The final question of the night was perhaps the most telling: How would you differentiate yourself from Trudeau?
Freeland: “I’m actually going to stick with the previous theme, and that is indigenous participation in energy projects.”
Moderator: “Going back to the question, Ms. Gould, how would you differentiate yourself from Trudeau?”
Gould: Indigenous relations are really important. I’m really proud of the work we did as a government”
Moderator: So how would you differentiate yourself from Trudeau?
Gould: "I'm very proud of the record that we have. And I would say I'm more grass-roots."
Baylis: "I am the candidate most distanced from Trudeau. I have not been his minister, I have not been his advisor. I would focus more on the economy and creating wealth.”
Carney: “I’m different. I’m focused on the economy. I’m much more hands-on. I have support from the caucus. I hear directly from supporters and have two-way dialog with the caucus.”
Freeland: “We as Liberals have to be proud of the things our government has done. This campaign has been a personal liberation. I believe the best style of leadership is collaborating and listening.”
Freeland: “I think history is going to judge very positively, the role Prime Minister Trudeau has played on climate action.”
“I hope Trump is watching this debate. We are not going to capitulate, and we are going to fight for our country.
The Tories Wednesday morning released a statement asserting Carney throughout the debate implicated himself in "his own disastrous record" as Trudeau's economic adviser of five years.
Our economy was weak before we got to the point of these threats from president Trump," wrote Tory MPs Michael Barrett and Pierre Paul-Hus.
"Carney said ‘our economy over the last five years, has been driven by the big increase in the labour force which was largely because of the surge in immigration' and by government spending that grew over 9% year-after-year after year, twice the rate of growth of our economy."
Carney "has had a direct role in the Liberals’ mess, advising Trudeau to hike taxes on the backs of working Canadians, while encouraging the massive spending that drove up inflation and interest rates."
“On top of this, sneaky Carney continued to say one thing in French and another thing in English," wrote the Conservatives, citing the example of Monday's French-language debate where Carney promised "supply management was off the table with negotiations with the US administration."
But today, in English, Mark Carney didn’t even mention supply management — hoping no one would notice."
“Carney also refused to disclose his financial interests or file an ethics disclosure before becoming prime minister."
"This means he could become prime minister and run in an election before Canadians ever are able to understand his massive conflicts of interest."